Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

January-25-13

New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortion After Rape/Incest

Under a proposed law in the New Mexico state House of Representative, a woman who has an abortion after being raped could face felony criminal charges.

New Mexico House Bill 206, proposed by state Representative Cathrynn Brown (R-Carlsbad), would classify terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest as tampering with evidence. The text of the proposed bill [PDF] reads "Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime." This could mean that rape or incest victims who seek to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape could face felony charges and up to three years in prison.

Representative Brown insists that the bill was designed to protect women from being forced to have an abortion by their attacker. She told the Albuquerque Journal "I thought I had a pretty good little bill that was going to accomplish a lot of good, and it's being misconstrued." She claims in the Carlsbad Current-Argus, the local newspaper for her district, that the bill was poorly drafted by a member of her staff and when reviewing it she didn't catch the possible interpretation that she is facing criticism for now. "I missed this one," she said.

Javier Gonzalez, the Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, told the Albuquerque Journal "This bill is wrong and should never see the light of day in any legislature in this country, let alone New Mexico. ... The war on women in America has to stop. No woman should ever be forced to carry a child for 'evidence,' plain and simple."

Representative Brown plans on introducing new legislation that will clarify that the attacker would be punished under the law, not the victim, however she has yet to respond further to the media.

Media Resources: Albuquerque News 1/25/2013; Business Insider 1/25/2013; Carlsbad Current-Argus 1/24/2013; USA Today 1/24/2013; New Mexico House Bill 206


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

8/4/2015 Senate Democrats Protect Funding for Planned Parenthood - Yesterday, Senate Democrats blocked legislation introduced by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) that would have stripped all federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 1881 would have slashed $528 million in federal funds from Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides sexual and reproductive health care to millions of women and men each year. To advance, the bill required 60 votes in its favor. . . .
 
8/3/2015 The Senate is Voting on Planned Parenthood Funding Today - A Senate bill to defund Planned Parenthood is expected to come to a vote today. Sponsored by Republican Senator Joni Ernst (IA), Senate Bill 1881 would prohibit all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood or "any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics." The Senate will need 60 votes to advance the bill, which is being proposed following the release of highly edited video footage by anti-abortion group the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). The CMP's misleading videos claim that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue. . . .
 
8/3/2015 Anti-Abortion Extremist Will Stand Trial for Threatening a Provider - A Kansas anti-abortion extremist will have to stand trial for threats made against a doctor planning to provide abortions, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. In a powerful decision for abortion providers being threatened by extremists, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 2-1 ruling that a jury - not a judge - should determine whether or not a 2011 letter Angel Dillard sent to Dr. . . .